There is No Republic

Whenever chatting among friends and the topic of politics arises, I often criticize the United States Government (USG). Whenever I criticize USG, it is always levying the complaint of it’s shortcomings or inadequacies due to the fact that it is a democracy. I am often then greeted with a swift rebuttal, “We have a republic!!” It is often said in a manner that is curt and meant to shut down discussion, perhaps with a hint of mild cognitive dissonance. This is the most frequent defense of USG that I receive when criticizing it’s democratic nature. So I have decided to put an end to this republican argument once and for all. Note: by republican, I do not mean the GOP but instead those who advocate/defend republicanism as a form of governance. Also, if I use the term ‘democrat,’ I am referring to advocates/defenders of democracy, and not the Democrat party of the USA. Note: when talking about democracy, I am referring strictly to indirect democracy (electing representatives); there are no direct democracies in the world.

So dear reader, I ask you, “do we have a republic?”

First, let us examine what a republic is. According to La Wik:

A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people, and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times, the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.

Next, let us examine what a democracy is. La Wik again:

Democracy is “a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity … are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly.”Democracy is further defined as (a:) “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) ” a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”

Hmmm…. well that did not clear things up. According to both definitions, the power resides with the people in both instances. In both forms of government, they hold elections to elect leaders and representatives as well. Is there really a difference between the two? In fact, they are often used interchangeably to describe USG. I wonder if the people making the claim that the US is a republic, as opposed to a democracy, can adequately state their case for such a distinction… or are they merely parroting what was told to them during their high school social studies class.

One important feature of the USG republic…err democracy.. err whatever is that it was created to be limited  by the United States Constitution. Ah yes, the Holy parchment. One of the most popular literary works of the United States, right up there with the Bible and Fifty Shades of Grey. In fact, republic in Latin translates* to “the law.” This is the law of the land. It is this lovely piece of paper that stands in the way of demotic mobocracy and tyranny. Perhaps this is what my friends are referring to when they make the claim that the USG is a republic, a constitutional republic. Well, how has our holiest of documents held up against the demotic forces of Cthulhu? Well let’s look at USG today.

Here is a link to an infographic showing the breakdown by bureaucracy of the 2014 Federal Budget (the fact that it is too big to post here should already be of concern). Below is a less triggering pie chart showing the break down of the 2014 budget ($3.5T):

EPIC FAIL

Now I am no constitutional lawyer, but I am pretty sure that most of those pieces of pie are not authorized by the US Constitution, especially Social Security and Medicare. While I cannot speak to the dead, I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers never envisioned a “limited government” with a budget of $3.5 TRILLION.

So, let me ask you reader, do you feel our Constitution has adequately shackled the demotic spirit and preserved our constitutional republic? Or has it been merely a paper tiger?

James Madison even wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that the purpose of of a republic is to protect our liberties and our property rights:

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths…”

Can you really say that a government that consumes $3.5 TRILLION of the economy every year has a strong respect for the rights of property of its citizens? Is there anything remotely republican about the nature of USG nowadays?

Even look at the actions of our elected representatives every election year. They change their voting behaviors in order to present a record to the mob to show how good of a job they have been doing up on Capitol Hill. They are literally catering to the mob every election year. The rest of the time, they cater to whatever special interests enter their offices. What are lobbyists other than moneyed groups of individuals voicing their concerns to elected representatives? They are a symptom of democracy and I laugh at progressive concerns over silly things like Citizens United v. FEC. You created this monster in the first place and now you are upset that you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. Besides, corporations are all on board with the progressive mantras of egalitarianism, feminism, multiculturalism, and diversity. Instead of issuing EBT cards, they do things like sell coffee.

While the American conservative covers his ears, stamps his feet, and shouts, “REPUBLIC,” our elected leaders are for once being honest about the nature of USG. Here is President Obama, talking about not only is democracy an American ideal, but a human right:

Here is President George W. Bush talking about how SCOTUS is a threat to our democracy:

Listen to any politician nowadays. They will refer to the United States as a democracy every time (with the exception of Ron Paul). It is apparent that the definitions of these two words have been muddied over the years and their true meanings lost.

Let’s do some digging through ye olde library for ancient scripts and see what they had to say about natures of democracies and republics. Let us look at an old military training manual from the War Department circa 1928 and check out their comparative analysis between the features of a democracy versus those of a republic (Section IX for those following along at home).

DEMOCRACY

• A government of the masses.
• Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
• Results in mobocracy.
• Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights.
• Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
• Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC

• Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
• Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
• A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
• Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
• Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
• Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world.

Which of those sound more like USG? Perhaps democracy and republic are no longer distinct forms of government, but instead they describe the nature of government.

Look at political discourse in the year 2015 and tell me what you see. Do liberty, reason, and statesmanship rule the day? Or do you see demagoguery, mob rule, agitation, discontent, and a road towards anarchy? With that, I leave you with some video from the Capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin:

*Thanks to @ChrisNahr on Twitter for pointing out that the Latin translation of ‘republic’ means ‘public affair.’

Transgenderism is Anti-Male

The tranny madness never ends. Meet Jazzy, the 11 year old transgendered kid who starting sexual reassignment at the age of 5:

Jazzy is just one of many transgender stories. For example, there is MMA Fighter Fallon Fox, little Tommy Lobel who now goes by Tammy, Orange is the New Black’s Laverne Cox, and even former Olympian Bruce Jenner.

Notice a trend here?

All of the examples of notable transgender people I listed are male-to-female (MtF). In fact, nearly every single case of transgenderism that I am aware of is male-to-female. Very few are female-to-male (FtM). There are a few I can think of: Chaz Bono and porn star Buck Angel. These cases are rare though. The overwhelming majority of notable transgender cases are male-to-female.

Where are all the little girls who want to transition into men? Why aren’t they being paraded around on our television screens?

Kind of strange, perhaps coincidental, that it as an agenda that is only being pushed on very young boys… yes… indeed.

I am going to say it now, in case it hasn’t been said already, that the transgender agenda is an assault on men. It is literally a movement to emasculate them, turn them into some kind of sexual novelty or freak show, to psychologically torture them, and ultimately send them to an early grave.

What better way to prevent the rise of “toxic masculinity” than by gelding young boys? Spineless parents surely do not alleviate the situation by bending to the fantastical whims of a young child.

It is grossly unethical to me to allow children to undergo any form of gender transition before they are 18. They can’t vote, can’t drive, can’t buy beer or tobacco, but they can somehow make a life-changing decision to change their gender at the age of 5?!? Are you fucking kidding me?!

But little Tommy wants to be a girl when he grows up! The great news is that our anti-male society will in no way hesitate to halt your puberty, start you on estrogen, and chop your penis off. However, if little Tommy wants  to grow up to be a big man, well something must be wrong with him. Luckily, he can’t get his hands on testosterone unless he has been medically diagnosed with Low T or he obtains it illegally in which case he can be jailed for illegal possession of controlled substance.

This transgender movement is Cathedral agitprop at its finest. They are glorifying the transgender lifestyle by shining light on all the great achievements of Social Justice. Are you a confused little goyboy? Are you depressed? Lonely? Did you play with a Barbie doll once and you liked it? Do you want to be a princess? Good news! You’re in luck! You can be the pretty princess you always wanted to be… since yesterday… after your parents laughed at you for wanting to be a dolphin… so you came up with this idea instead! Mommy approves! She can’t wait to dress up her new daughter! And father… well he doesn’t have much to say because he is a spineless coward but just know you are killing him on the inside.

if you cut your wrists: you are put on suicide watch. if you cut your dick off: you get to march in parades.

— The Reactionary Tree (@ReactionaryTree) February 9, 2015

Pretty soon, I won’t be surprised if Child Protection Services confiscate your children from you because they identified as transgender and you wouldn’t allow them to transition. Mark my words it is going to happen in this country in my lifetime. I guarantee it.

Don’t you worry, the state will make sure that little Tommy becomes little Tammy by chopping his dick off & pumping him full of estrogen.

Tumblr SJW Insanity

We live in very maddening times. As Chthulu swims further left, we begin to see peculiar behaviors in our fellow man. The fastest growing portion of the progressive left are the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). While many in the alternative right have been aware of these people for quite some time, in the past year or so, they have gone mainstream and middle America has been coming into contact with them via the kulturkampf of our time that is #GamerGate.

From battling “misogyny” in video games, to carrying around rape mattresses, to decrying the “oppression” that is HIV disclosure laws, these people are everywhere. They are not going away. They are growing as a movement.

Where do these people come from? Why do they think like this? What is this madness?

Let us take a look at Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends & Influence People to find out what causes this behavior. As Carnegie points out, Sigmund Freud says that everything we do springs from two motives: the sex urge and the desire to be great.

Carnegie points out once again, Dr. John Dewey, an American philosopher, says that our deepest urge in human nature is “the desire to be important.”

Now human beings have been around a very long time, so why does this spring about now? Entitlement.

Our culture is steeped in entitlement. Now, the Baby Boomers are entitled in their own way but they have effectively given Millennials the freedom from accountability and responsibility.

This is the “everyone gets a trophy because no one is a loser” generation. It has created a generation full of Special Snowflakes. This has created a fertile soil for entitlement to grow and the insanity of the SJW movement to blossom.

With no effort you can be a great person… at least that is the prevailing lie that was told to them their whole lives.

They have no great conflict or struggle. No great war. No real hardships. They have lived the most comfortable lives of any generation of human beings.

No on has told them what they needed to hear. They were told they could be whatever they wanted to be. That they could follow their dreams. That by doing this, they would become successful. They were going to do whatever it is they wanted to do and they would become rich and famous.

Well they found the hard way that wasn’t true. They are coming to the realization that they cannot do whatever they want and be whatever it is they wanted to be: important. It is actually a lot of hard work to become an important person.

How important is being important to them?

Carnegie shows us the way. Carnegie asks the question: what is the cause of insanity? Carnegie went on to ask a doctor. The doctor replied,

Well nobody knows for sure… many people who go insane find in insanity a feeling of importance that they were unable to achieve in the world of reality.

Think about that for a second. Some people are so hungry to feel important that they would go insane to get it. You don’t believe these SJWs and Tumblristas are insane? Go read some of their blogs or go search on Tumblr. A few decades ago, we would have institutionalized these people for being insane.

They have no dragons to slay. They have not accomplished their goals in life. They have no real purpose. They are failures. Their dreams didn’t come true. They have been unable to achieve in reality. Given that they are entitled little brats who have never had to work for anything in life, they have chosen the path of least resistance that requires little effort. In order to fulfill their most natural desires, to be important, they have chosen the path of insanity.

Anonymous Conservative’s Books: Free Today

If you have not read The Anonymous Conservative, then you absolutely must. He takes a deep look into the evolutionary psychology of the political landscape we see in our world today. He is one of my favorite EvoPsych bloggers. For today and tomorrow, you can download both of his books for free. Head over to the Castalia House and download your free copies of:

• The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics
• How to Deal With Narcissists

This deal is today (2/9/15) and tomorrow (2/10/15) only.

Masculine Virtues

Being a man is more than simply having a dangler.  Being a man is defined by masculinity.  Once we define masculinity, we see that the values of masculinity are simply not compatible with leftism in general.  They despise it.  And masculinity is not simply aspiring to be strong like He-Man or the Incredible Hulk.

So these are my tenets or virtues of masculinity…

First off, we must reject the notion of egalitarianism.  Egalitarianism is complete bullshit.  The only equality that should exist (but still doesnt) is that all people should be treated equally under the law.  That is it. This is called equity.  There cannot possibly be equality of opportunity, equal treatment, equality of outcome or equality in general.  Such a well-intent notion quickly evolves into Harrison Bergeron. Even under the most socialist of conditions, some will be more equal than others.  Men and women are not equal.  They never have been and they never will be.  If you cannot grapple your mind around that, then you will fail to understand why this feminist/masculinist struggle is indeed a left/right issue.  Most of these Leftist MRAs use the terms “egalitarian” or “humanist” in order to appease their feminist counterparts.  Everyone can see through your bullshit. You are toeing the line of political correctness and submitting to the feminine imperative. It is not working.

I wanted to talk about egalitarianism because it goes into my next point, one of the defining features of masculinity, which is patriarchy.  Patriarchy arose out of sexual dimorphism.  There are differences in the sexes.  Men, not only human males but many in the animal kingdom as well, are the head of the household.  They lead the lion pride or the wolf pack.  Men have been the natural leaders throughout history.  It is in our biology to be patriarchs.  It is our very nature.  So embrace the patriarchy.  Abandoning patriarchy in favor of egalitarianism will only mean that feminists become more equal than men.

The next virtue of masculinity is industrialism.  Work has always been crucial in order to achieve masculine status.  By being active in enterprise, men are able to fulfill their duties as the head patriarch and are able to be truly independent.  When a man is without work, you can see it eat away at his soul.  It crushes his spirit that he becomes unable to provide for himself and the people he loves most.  Leftism is anti-industrialist.  They do not value work, being self-reliant, or enterprise in general.  They seek to destroy it every chance they get.  Look at their policies: taxation, regulation, subsidization.  They want to destroy wealth produced by work.  They want to regulate enterprise in order to limit it and they want to subsidize false enterprises like gender studies.  Look at Occupy Wall Street.  Look at every socialist revolution throughout history.  They do not seek to build people up.  They seek to crush people.  They want people to be reliant on government.

The next virtue is that of imperialism.  I do not speak of armies conquering foreign lands, I speak of it on a smaller level, in our own personal lives.  The great men of history displayed great courage in their endeavors.  They sought to conquer the unknown.  It is about enduring the unknown, remaining courageous, and conquering all obstacles.  Be they hunters, pioneers, builders, scientists, they all shared those traits.  Their spirits were imperialistic and they sought to conquer the unknown.  This strive to succeed is another characteristic despised by the left.  They do not you to be self-sufficient and independent.  They do not want trail-blazers.  They want servants.  They want patrons of the state.  They want people to believe that they cannot succeed.  They want them to believe that the deck is stacked against them.  They want to crush the imperialist spirit of men.  They want men to submit.

The only way that men will be given a fair shake in society is if they embrace their natural tendencies, reject leftist ideology, and limit the size & power of the state.

Adding Value

This advice can certainly apply to all human interactions. Whether, you are at a restaurant, dealing with a business partner, or with a friend, adding value to human interactions will make the interactions more fruitful in terms of your enjoyment of those interactions and also what can become of them i.e. friendships, networking, relationships, etc.

What is game? Game is value-added to male-female interactions.

When you spit game, you are providing value to an interaction with a woman. You are giving her the value she is craving. You are cocky, funny, confident, masculine, cocksure and alpha. Her panties moisten at the the thought of interacting with a man who provides that value to her everyday mundane life.

A person who is entitled doesn’t have game. example: Elliot Rodger. That guy was good looking, medium-high IQ, wealthy but he never got laid. Why not? He had a gross level of entitlement. He never felt the need to add value into the lives of women. He thought by the virtue of merely being himself that the sexiest women in California would throw themselves at his feet.

It is not pedestalization to give a little to see if your value will be reciprocated. Pedastalization is when you constantly give away value and you do not receive any in return. You can’t expect to go through life taking value from people without reciprocating. If this sounds like you, people probably think you are a dick.

You can add value to any human interaction, not just game, whether you are at a restaurant, trying to get into a club, or business networking. Of course, it is important to tailor the value being added to the particular situation. Try to build a rapport with a person. Try offering up a compliment to a person. You never know. It may make that person’s day and they will go out of their way to make sure that you are rewarded i.e. entry into a club, great service, a new business contact, etc. It really doesn’t take much effort and can greatly enrich the quality of your interactions with people.

Adding value to basic human interactions is a sign to you come from an abundance mindset. You are willing to give value because you don’t mind parting with it. However, you expect to receive value in return. People who are entitled don’t give away value (or reciprocate it), they just take it because they feel they deserve it. They come from a scarcity mindset. (when you think about it, depending on the interaction, adding value is a really low-effort thing)

If you add value to an interaction and into your relationships and they do not reciprocate that value in anyway and they just take it, then fuck those people. They are not people you want in your life. People who just take value without reciprocating are shitty people with entitlement complexes.

Do you want to have friendships, business partners, lovers who only take value from you and never reciprocate? I didn’t think so.

The world would be a much nicer place if everyone sought to add value to their interactions with people instead of treating them like shit.

I’ve been reading a lot about stoicism and Danger & Play‘s blog and he talks a lot about having an abundance mindset and adding value. You will live a richer, more rewarding life if you add value to all your human interactions and relationships.

Feminism is for Ugly Women

First, I would like to thank all of my readers for following my blog, commenting, and what not. It’s nice to see that my posts have inspired the posts of other bloggers. I just wanted to let my readers know that I will be cutting the posting from twice weekly to once weekly. I am pretty busy with work but also with other self-improvement projects I have in the works for 2015. I am planning on taking up boxing, learning Spanish, and salsa dancing. So that will be quite a load in addition to writing, reading, traveling, and weight lifting like I am currently doing. I just wanted to let you guys know ahead of time in case you were wondering where Thursday’s post was going to be.

Now enjoy this rant against feminism.

Recently, in the world of pop culture, Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting, of TV show The Big Bang Theory, proclaimed that she is not a feminist. Naturally, such a public statement of blasphemy sent the shrilling harpy masses into a conniption fit. Luckily, the Cathedral was able to shame her into issuing a public apology. Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting is a fairly attractive woman. She is not a feminist because she has no need for it.

Beautiful women have no need for feminism. Regardless of the lack of female representation (compared to men) in positions of authority, women have always had a substantial amount of power in society. Women use coercion and persuasion over men as a means to get things done. This is the anatomy of female power. Women have always avoided positions of authority because with being in a position of authority comes responsibility and accountability. Women have a strong aversion to responsibility and accountability. You see this in even the most mundane social interactions like, “where should we go for dinner?” A woman will have greater respect for a man who makes a bad decision but is decisive than they will towards a man who makes no decision at all.

The current brand of feminism is made up of greedy women seeking more power than they already have, the tomboys (women who secretly want to be men), and the female equivalents of the basement-dwelling WoWmega males. The selfish women just want more power than they already have. The tomboys want to be men. The omega females are the fat, ugly types who are unable to exert influence over men because they are fat and ugly (and usually their personalities are congruent with their appearances).

This idea that we live in a patriarchy is obviously preposterous. If we lived in a true patriarchy, do we honestly believe that women’s suffrage would have happened? How did women’s suffrage come to be if there were virtually no women in Congress or the White House to pass it into law? It is because they exercised indirect power over men. In a true patriarchy, the alpha males of society would have collectively pimp-slapped the suffragettes and told them to get back in the kitchen.

Beautiful and charming women are very dangerous creatures because they have the ability to exercise an immense amount of power by using men as proxies. These women have no need for feminism. They can extract all of the resources from men that they need and create environments to ensure their safety and security using their natural talents of coercion and persuasion. Ugly/fat women cannot. That is why feminism is full of the most broken women you can find. Rarely do you see a gorgeous feminist. However, they do exist. When you do see a gorgeous feminist, you can make the assumption that she is psychology broken and/or power hungry (wielding power indirectly is not enough; she wants the positions of authority as well as the current amount of power that she already has). So men, when you meet a woman and she proclaims that she is a true, red-blooded feminist, what she is really proclaiming to you is that she is a failure as a woman. So approach with caution.

The post was inspired by this post from T. Bone over at The Rawness.

The GOP Future and Diversity

As many of you are already aware, whites will are slated to be a non-majority in 2042 based demographic projections. That’s the bad news of the Helter Skelter future. There is a bright spot though. The political left is bleeding white voters. These voters leaving the left are the working, middle class whites. This is the Vaisya nation. There are some problems with this. These people are not necessarily strong advocates for free market capitalism or social conservatism. They are political moderates at best. You can see this divide taking place in the current #GamerGate debate. The GamerGaters are an extremely diverse group of people: there are people of all races, sexual orientations, genders, religious affiliation, political beliefs, etc. They are all simply united in their battle against Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). This appears to be the future of American politics. It will be a large group of moderates who are united against the agents of Cultural Marxism, which will be an alliance of Diversity Inc. and the broken white SWPLs. You can see this playing itself in all of the Ferguson, Mike Brown, Eric Garner, NYPD murders. You see the people who support the thugs (Diversity Inc. and broken SWPLS) and the people who support the police (normal people).

The GOP is the white people’s party. This is how the media paints them, how most people generally view the GOP, and how the voting is playing itself out. However, they will never explicitly say that they are.  That would be way too politically incorrect. We will see things play out like the current situation with the House Majority Whip, Steve Scalise. Scalise spoke to a white nationalist organization back in 2002. Today, he is separating himself from that group saying he had no idea who they were and that he does not share their values. As whites become more aware of their future non-majority status, they are becoming more racially aware. You will see growth in neoreactionary ideas, you will see growth in white racial awareness, you will see growth of organizations like VDARE and American Renaissance. However, none of these ideas will be part of the GOP platform…ever. You will probably see more politicians like Scalise in the GOP as well. They will exercise plausible deniability and disparage the groups they spoke to or were involved with. This will piss off the hard-liners but this is all politics. You have to remain politically correct in our democratic system.  The GOP will become more moderate as they shift leftward with the Overton Window but they will become whiter and whiter. The GOP will always speak to the virtues of diversity, but they will never truly be a diverse party though they will have a wide diverse coalition similar to the GamerGaters, but they’ll be mostly white. They will have their token candidates that they throw up in front of the country to show how non-racist they are but no one is really going to buy it (not the Cathedral at least). They will be the party of the mostly white middle class. That will be their bread and butter. They are several decades too late to stop the wave of illegal immigration. They will never be a party that explicitly states they stand for whites or Christians. They will be the party of these middle class ideals.

Reactionary Podcasts

I have compiled a short list of Reactionary/Manosphere Podcasts that I enjoy listening to. If you have any to recommend, please feel free to post them in the comments section below.

• Common Filth Radio
• Aaron Clarey
• Matt Forney
• Radix
• Radio Derb
• The Right Stuff – The Daily Shoah
• Holistic Game
• Danger and Play
• Christian McQueen

Being Alone vs Loneliness

There is a difference. I can tell you from personal experience. Sometimes they go together, but often times they do not.

Growing up through high school and through my early college years, I was never alone, but I was often lonely. Even in relationships with women I would find myself becoming lonely and depressed following the initial honeymoon phase of the relationship. Back then, I had dozens of friends and many people knew me.  I haven’t had trouble remembering all their names there were so many… that or it was the copious amounts of pot I was smoking on a daily basis but I can’t say for sure. Living in a frat house, there were dozens of friends around and parties several times a week. However, I can tell you that there was no moment in my life where I was a lonelier person than being in that environment.

2014 was an interesting year for me. It was when I became fully red pill-aware and began shifting away from libertarianism towards reactionary in my politics (though I still hold some libertarian sympathies). Even in the beginning of the year I was still having trouble dealing with loneliness even though I was in a relationship. I certainly had become more alone in my personal life since this is post-college and I am working. In my work, I work alone. So this can often compound the loneliness a person feels. Combine with it the fact that your friends are be married off to harpies who won’t let have an ounce of freedom because the men willingly and eagerly give away their balls (my friends are extremely blue pill). Your social life takes a bit of a hit as well. Also, you tend to glorify a career beyond the satisfaction that it can realistically provide, leaving you feel a little empty. Being alone and being lonely is never a fun combination. So I did what any reasonable person would do in such a situation and began to drink heavily.

I remember the particular moment I felt that I hit rock bottom (or so to say). It was around March of 2014. It was hearing that a friend may potentially lose his job over some politically incorrect things he said. It was pretty upsetting to me. The things he said were not very extreme at all (certainly not as extreme as what you would find in your average DE blog). You feel for your friend because you realize that if he could be fired for what he said, then anyone of us certainly could be fired as well. It was a feeling of helplessness over the current situation compounded by loneliness, being alone, and the drink.

Enter the red pill.

The feeling of helplessness was a feeling that was so unpleasant that it drove me to looking for answers. I was already aware of the red pill but have not really dabbled much in it. I found the Roosh V Forum and joined. It was here that I found the answers I was looking for.

My mother is literally dead, my father is figuratively dead to me, I have no immediate family, no children, no wife, no girlfriend, my friends are pretty lame, I work alone, and I live alone. I have had to support myself since Day 1 of adulthood. I am about as alone as any person can be sans the mountain hermit. However, I am not lonely. In fact, I have never felt happier to be honest with you.

I didn’t find exact answers per se but I did find myself as cliche as it sounds. The manosphere is a community that I respect greatly because it provided me a place where I could build myself up to become a better man. It was finding my mission, or my purpose in life, that made me feel content with myself. It has been the strides I have been making in terms of self-improvement that have built up my confidence and self-esteem. I got back to hitting those weights after being dormant for nearly a decade. I read 20 books last year (the most I have ever read in a year). I went on my first international trip last year to the Philippines (Sorry Canada, you don’t count). I started this blog and apparently people read it. I also added several notches to the belt. I made myself my mission in 2014 and this is the happiest I have been in a long time.

I really do owe it to the manosphere for “saving” me if you will. Reading the stories, sharing wisdom, connecting with like-minded people. It is a great resource for any man out there.

I am alone but I am not lonely. So, reader, if you are lonely, I would suggest you do some self-reflection and ask yourself what you can be doing to make yourself a better person. Perhaps you have been unknowingly neglecting the person that matters most: you.